BACKGROUND: Women in medically vulnerable populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and residents of rural areas, experience higher breast cancer mortality than do others. Whether mammography facilities that treat vulnerable women demonstrate lower quality of care than other facilities is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of mammography women receive at facilities characterized as serving a high proportion of medically vulnerable populations. RESEARCH DESIGN: We prospectively collected self-reported breast cancer risk factor information, mammography interpretations, and cancer outcomes on 1,579,929 screening mammography examinations from 750,857 women, aged 40-80 years, attending any of 151 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 1998 and 2004. To classify facilities as serving medically vulnerable populations, we used 4 criteria: educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority, household income, and rural/urban residence. RESULTS: After adjustment for patient-level factors known to affect mammography accuracy, facilities serving vulnerable populations had significantly higher mammography specificity than did other facilities: ie, those serving a higher proportion of women who were minorities [odds ratio (OR): 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.73], living in rural areas (1.45; 1.15-1.73), and with lower household income (1.33; 1.05-1.68). We observed no statistically significant differences between facilities in mammography sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Facilities serving high proportions of vulnerable populations provide screening mammography with equal or better quality (as reflected in higher specificity with no corresponding decrease in sensitivity) than other facilities. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these findings.
BACKGROUND:Women in medically vulnerable populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and residents of rural areas, experience higher breast cancer mortality than do others. Whether mammography facilities that treat vulnerable women demonstrate lower quality of care than other facilities is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of mammography women receive at facilities characterized as serving a high proportion of medically vulnerable populations. RESEARCH DESIGN: We prospectively collected self-reported breast cancer risk factor information, mammography interpretations, and cancer outcomes on 1,579,929 screening mammography examinations from 750,857 women, aged 40-80 years, attending any of 151 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 1998 and 2004. To classify facilities as serving medically vulnerable populations, we used 4 criteria: educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority, household income, and rural/urban residence. RESULTS: After adjustment for patient-level factors known to affect mammography accuracy, facilities serving vulnerable populations had significantly higher mammography specificity than did other facilities: ie, those serving a higher proportion of women who were minorities [odds ratio (OR): 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.73], living in rural areas (1.45; 1.15-1.73), and with lower household income (1.33; 1.05-1.68). We observed no statistically significant differences between facilities in mammography sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Facilities serving high proportions of vulnerable populations provide screening mammography with equal or better quality (as reflected in higher specificity with no corresponding decrease in sensitivity) than other facilities. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these findings.
Authors: Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Romano Demicheli; Michael W Retsky; William J M Hrushesky; Michael Baum; Isaac D Gukas; Ismail Jatoi Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; And Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Andy Bogart; Jessica C Germino; L Elizabeth Goldman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Anna Na Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman; Tracy L Onega Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Robert D Rosenberg; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Berta M Geller; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; R James Brenner; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Rasmi G Nair; Simon J Craddock Lee; Hong Zhu; Firouzeh K Arjmandi; Emily Berry; Keith E Argenbright; Jasmin A Tiro; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske; Kim L Dittus; Berta Geller; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Thomas P Ahern; Sally D Herschorn; Michelle Sowden; Donald L Weaver; Marie E Wood Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jan Norum; Solveig Hofvind; Carsten Nieder; Edrun Andrea Schnell; Ann Ragnhild Broderstad Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 1.228